Reply To Bsix Re Gender

[MaidservantX]

Xhenli,

I don't get where you are going with this. Man and woman, together, one flesh. The PH authority is held by the man, the patriarch in the home, and the mother/wife is blessed thru that authority.

As for the more 'traditional/hogwash' comment, I think that unfortunately we have moved away from what is right. There is too much confusion with the sexes today as it is, and I feel that the older generations knew what their roles were and that there was a lot less of this angst that seems to exist in the world (and church) today. Too many men have become women, trying to not stink, to not sweat, to get in touch with their 'feminine' side, and have become a bunch of wimps. Mormon feminists is the biggest joke I have ever seen. They are so worried about being 'equal' with men that they lose sight of their god-given roles and responsibilities.

But what do I know?

Hi, six,

Well, I certainly wouldn't see our views as opposing, but perhaps we are coming at the same thing at different angles.

Where shall I start to clarify myself? Let's see. (By the way, I do not self-identify as a feminist.)

Well, for me, I am not that big on roles as I understand the concept of 'roles' to be. I think it can have it's place but, hmm, I don't know, I just think some of our roles need to be shed, yes, including some of our gender ones. But maybe it is a semantic (not so sure). What I am big on is the purpose of men and women (genderwise). That can express itself in a lot of changes of societal traditions. For example, in Africa men do not cook or touch food, traditionally. Is this really the gospel? It is certainly not our American roles. Can a man and woman who observe this tradition in Africa be living the gospel and fulfill their gender purpose? Yes. Can they also fulfill their purpose if they decide to forsake that tradition and the man makes some pancakes? Yes. The roles are much more discardable than the purpose. We do the same thing in America, but we are too close to it to see where the line is between role and purpose (and I'm talking about myself).

Obviously, being a mother is my greatest purpose. And being a father is a man's greatest purpose. Those two things are immutable, IMO. Everything else is subject to change whether 'in God's due time' or as easily as 'whatever we individually think is best' (depends on what the detail is and whether God has spoken on it).

I'm not great at keeping the dishes and other housework done. I pay my own kids and the neighborhood kids to do it. In some sense, that would be a waste of my time, that side of homemaking. On the other hand, I find it unacceptable to fail at building relationships of trust and of imparting the precepts of the gospel to the souls that our heavenly Father has placed in my care. I find that to be my 'role' (among other things) as a woman.

If you don't understand what I said to begin with -- and I am stating it as a personal thought not as gospel, I should have made that more clear -- here is another way to say it: the man receives the woman (and his family thereby) as a portion of his priesthood. It is the highest priesthood. What you said about the 'one flesh' is of course very right. And men and women have authority together in the home, especially when they lead their children, they should be unified completely. I do know that men preside. But I also know that it is not good for man to be a lone. That is not a 'loneliness/love' scripture. That is a knowledge and progression scripture. Obviously, women need men also; or not so obviously, but I'll admit it :).

I am extremely interested in women being women and men being men; it is one of my causes in life and in the world, to have individuals connect with this, belief in it, manifest in their daily lives: love being a man or woman, and know what it means.

BTW, men have a lot of nourishing energy. You can call it feminine if you want. It shouldn't hurt to call it that. On the other hand it doesn't need to be called that.

[sixpacktr]

Xhenli,

thank you for clarifying. And yes, you are correct. I don't see us as being really that different in our beliefs, but rather, perhaps, the angle at which we look at the same thing.

The 'mormon feminists' thing was not aimed at you, although, upon further reading of my post, it wasn't clear. I am talking, though, about those women that feel that political pressure, etc., can effect change in the church. My opinion is that they don't believe in the church as being Christ's, and therefore thing that they can 'steady the ark' and correct what those doddering old men in SLC are doing.

BY had some interesting things to say about 'ark steadiers', several of which I have recently read in Bro Nibley's book 'Brother Brigham Challenges the Saints'. But I digress...

I am the father of 3 girls. I 'became' feminine simply because I was surrounded all the time by the emotional side of life. For crying out loud, I became a huge fan of 'Gilmore Girls'! But I also was able to bring stink and sweat into the house because I love to fish, love to hunt, love to work on my cars, fix the house (hate yard work, but do it anyway), etc. I too cleaned the house and did laundry, dishes, whatever, because my wife was carting the kids around to other places, or going to school herself.

My wife is my greatest treasure. 2nd are my girls.

Then it is my Jeep and Miata!

[MaidservantX]

[CrimsonKairos]

This reminds me of anima vs. animus, and how a "whole" person incorporates both aspects. I'd call them two halves of the divine nature.

[Fiannan]

This reminds me of anima vs. animus, and how a "whole" person incorporates both aspects. I'd call them two halves of the divine nature.

Careful there...Elphaba doesn't seem a big fan of psychoanalytic thories or of individual psychology. So bringing up Carl Jung...

[Elphaba]

<div class='quotemain'>

This reminds me of anima vs. animus, and how a "whole" person incorporates both aspects. I'd call them two halves of the divine nature.

Careful there...Elphaba doesn't seem a big fan of psychoanalytic thories or of individual psychology. So bringing up Carl Jung...

You've gone from an obssession with Freud to an obssession with this "Elphaba" person. Ewwwww.

Jaynee Doe

[prisonchaplain]

I don't work on cars, I don't really hunt or fish...but I am not a fan of the Gilmore girls either. Can I still consider myself "a manly man?" Hey! I joined a gym (now if I could just GET there).

[Fiannan]

<div class='quotemain'>

<div class='quotemain'>

This reminds me of anima vs. animus, and how a "whole" person incorporates both aspects. I'd call them two halves of the divine nature.

Careful there...Elphaba doesn't seem a big fan of psychoanalytic thories or of individual psychology. So bringing up Carl Jung...

You've gone from an obssession with Freud to an obssession with this "Elphaba" person. Ewwwww.

Jaynee Doe

Hey, careful...you could be showing early signs of paranoia and narcissisistic personality disorder if you believe that.